There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects

Edward Keenan coined the term “existential-have” for have-sentences containing a relational noun in object position that present a definiteness effect (DE) similar to the one in there be-sentences. We begin this paper by showing in detail that the DE in these sentences is in fact different from the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bassaganyas Bars, T
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: De Gruyter 2019
_version_ 1797078748094267392
author Bassaganyas Bars, T
author_facet Bassaganyas Bars, T
author_sort Bassaganyas Bars, T
collection OXFORD
description Edward Keenan coined the term “existential-have” for have-sentences containing a relational noun in object position that present a definiteness effect (DE) similar to the one in there be-sentences. We begin this paper by showing in detail that the DE in these sentences is in fact different from the one found with there be-sentences. We then explain how these contrasts reflect differences in the semantics of the two sorts of sentences that we have independently argued for in previous work. We will specifically challenge two assumptions that are frequently made about the definiteness effect in have-sentences: (1) that it is related to any version of the so-called “weak”/“strong” distinction that has been used to characterize the effect in there be-sentences; and (2) that it is limited to relational nouns like handle and follows from treating such nouns as two-place predicates. Finally, we show how our account is superior to other accounts that have been offered of the definiteness effect in have-sentences.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T00:36:11Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:817da8ec-ef4a-46bf-ba47-1ec5ab196076
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T00:36:11Z
publishDate 2019
publisher De Gruyter
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:817da8ec-ef4a-46bf-ba47-1ec5ab1960762022-03-26T21:30:37ZThere be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effectsJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:817da8ec-ef4a-46bf-ba47-1ec5ab196076EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordDe Gruyter 2019Bassaganyas Bars, TEdward Keenan coined the term “existential-have” for have-sentences containing a relational noun in object position that present a definiteness effect (DE) similar to the one in there be-sentences. We begin this paper by showing in detail that the DE in these sentences is in fact different from the one found with there be-sentences. We then explain how these contrasts reflect differences in the semantics of the two sorts of sentences that we have independently argued for in previous work. We will specifically challenge two assumptions that are frequently made about the definiteness effect in have-sentences: (1) that it is related to any version of the so-called “weak”/“strong” distinction that has been used to characterize the effect in there be-sentences; and (2) that it is limited to relational nouns like handle and follows from treating such nouns as two-place predicates. Finally, we show how our account is superior to other accounts that have been offered of the definiteness effect in have-sentences.
spellingShingle Bassaganyas Bars, T
There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
title There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
title_full There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
title_fullStr There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
title_full_unstemmed There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
title_short There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
title_sort there be and have sentences different semantics different definiteness effects
work_keys_str_mv AT bassaganyasbarst therebeandhavesentencesdifferentsemanticsdifferentdefinitenesseffects